Local lawyers judge the judges

Survey lets them rate eight on Superior bench.

SOUTH BEND -- The St. Joseph County Bar Association has released the results of its 2011 Judicial Survey, revealing what local attorneys think of the county's eight Superior Court judges.

The verdict: Judges received generally high marks across the four categories -- "legal ability," "integrity and impartiality," "professionalism and temperament" and "administrative capability."

Superior Court judges in St. Joseph County are appointed by the governor, but are up for "yes" or "no" retention votes two years after their appointment and then every six years.

In November 2012, three judges will be up for retention election -- Judges Jerome Frese, Jenny Pitts Manier and Margot Reagan.

Advertisement

"This is a way to let the public know what the lawyers who practice in front of the judges see as (the judges') strengths and weaknesses," said Joe Fullenkamp, president of the county's Bar Association and chairman of the Judicial Evaluation Committee.

The full results of this year's survey can be found online at http://sjcba.org/judiciary/Judicial_ Survey_2011.pdf.

Attorneys rated judges on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being "unacceptable," 2 being "below average," 3 being "average/acceptable," 4 being "above average" and 5 being "exceptional" in 20 subcategories.

No judge averaged a 1 or 5 in any measure.

On the WebTo read the results of the judicial survey, go to http://www.south bendtribune.com.

Judge Jerome Frese was the only judge to receive an average score below 3, and he did so in seven subcategories: "clear and logical communications and decisions," "acts in a dignified manner," "promotes public understanding of and confidence in the courts," "punctuality and preparation for court," "maintains control over the courtroom," "makes decisions and rulings in a timely manner" and "manages cases to an expeditious conclusion."

In the first judicial survey, conducted in 2008, Frese received a score below 3 in three categories.

Frese received his highest marks in two areas: "knowledge and understanding of substantive law" and "acts fairly by giving people individual consideration," where he scored an average score of 3.51.

The judge did not comment for this report.

Chief Judge Michael Scopelitis received the highest marks. He notched a 4.65 average score in the subcategory "ability to make difficult or unpopular decisions." No other judge achieved such a score on any other subcategory.

"This survey gives the public information they otherwise would not have," Scopelitis said. "It's very difficult for the public to really know what we're doing, because so many of them have no contact with us at all. We're just a name on the ballot without really any idea of whether we're doing a good job or not."

Judge Jenny Pitts Manier, who presides over the court's Mishawaka division, received similarly high scores to Scopelitis, earning no less than a "4" in every subcategory.

Judge Jane Woodward Miller earned stronger marks in areas relating to her demeanor in court, her dealings with lawyers and defendants, and the daily administration of her courtroom.

Her lowest mark, in "clear and logical communications and decisions," was 3.65.

"I'm disappointed," she said. "The scores are lower than I would like them to be."

"One of my strengths is that I can relate to people," the judge said. "We're all God's children and I'm very mindful of that. When we're talking about when I'm on the bench and relating to litigants and lawyers in front of me, that's something that comes more easily to me, frankly, than writing a cogent order."

Like Miller, Judge Margot Reagan also received her lowest scores in the "legal ability" category and higher marks in areas related to temperament, integrity and court administration.

Judge John Marnocha's scores were the reverse. He scored highest in areas related to "legal ability." His lowest score came on "punctuality and preparation for court," where he received an average score of 3.52, and "considers all sides of an argument with an open mind before rendering a decision," where he received a 3.47.

Judge Roland Chamblee Jr., on the bench since 1990, did not focus on his average scores; instead he examined where and how often any attorney rated him "unacceptable" -- even if it was only one attorney who did so.

Those categories included "treats all people with courtesy," "acts with patience and self-control" and "considers all sides of an argument with an open mind before rendering a decision."

"When people think I'm impatient, I guess I probably am," the judge said. "Impatience may come with the frustration of dealing with a system that has parts that don't always work as they should."

Still, Chamblee received strong scores across all four areas. His two highest average scores came in "avoidance of impropriety and the appearance of impropriety" and "makes decisions and rulings in a timely manner" where he received a 4.13 and 4.14, respectively.

"I think it's always good for us to hear from those who practice with us or in front of us," Chamblee said.

Judge David Chapleau agreed, saying the survey spurs judges to do a better job.

"Overall, the judges got pretty good ratings," Chapleau said. "As a group, it shows that our method of selection is a good method. ... It's a good group of people. I'm proud to be with them."